To the contention that there is a specific prohibition in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty against the erection of fortifications, and that this would sufficiently insure the free use of the canal, Lord Lansdowne replies that this "contention is one which His Majesty's government are quite unable to admit." He notes the vagueness of language in the amendment, and says: "Even if it were more precisely worded it would be impossible to determine what might be the effect if one clause permitting defensive measures and another forbidding fortifications were allowed to stand side by side in the convention. To His Majesty's government it seems, as I have already said, that the amendment might be construed as leaving it open to the United States at any moment, not only if war existed, but even if it were anticipated, to take any measures, however stringent or far-reaching, which in their own judgment might be represented as suitable for the purpose of protecting their national interests. Such an enactment would strike at the very root of that 'general principle' of neutralization upon which the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was based, and which was reaffirmed in the convention as drafted." As to the third Senate amendment, which struck out the provision inviting the adherence of other powers, Lord Lansdowne says: "The amendment not only removes all prospect of the wider guarantee of the neutrality of the canal, but places this country in a position of marked disadvantage compared with other powers which would not be subject to the self-denying ordinance which Great Britain is desired to accept. It would follow, were His Majesty's government to agree to such an arrangement, that while the United States would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal in time of war, or apprehended war, and while other powers could with a clear conscience disregard any of the restrictions imposed by the convention, Great Britain alone, in spite of her enormous possessions on the American Continent, in spite of the extent of her Australasian colonies and her interests in the East, would be absolutely precluded from resorting to any such action or from taking measures to secure her interests in and near the canal."